If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: So DIVERSE!

In this world is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of god hovering from above? Perhaps men have no control even over their own will.

You're right, we are mortal and fragile. But even if we are tortured or wounded, we'll fight to survive. You should feel the pain we feel and understand. I am the messenger that will deliver you to that pain and understanding.

Re: So DIVERSE!

I'll be honest, after AOC started talking about 70% tax rates I learned how tax brackets actually work reading the blue team's rebuttals.

Tax brackets only apply to the money in that bracket. Even if you're making $1,000,000 the first $10,000 are only taxed at the rate for people earning <10,000, the next 40,000 are only taxed at the rate for people earning <50,000 or whatever the brackets are. I didn't look them up for this post. So a "70% tax on the wealthy" isn't actually a flat 70% income tax. They'll still make the first $500,000 or whatever the highest bracket is, paying taxes like anyone else. It's just a 70% tax on income above that very highest bracket.

I'm kind of embarassed I made it to 30+ making 55k/yr and didn't know/remember that.

Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

Yeah, I see what happened when Reagan showed up, but I'm not comfortable putting it all on him. No one reverted them back to this day, where we're still only talking about it. Obama would have put up 70% again in a heartbeat to get his ACA if it was that great of an idea. I'm out of my depth on economics but common sense tells me it's far more likely the crazy lady who commits to retarded things doesn't know what she's talking about, than that everyone since 1989 has disagreed with Reagan. I suspect she needed a strategist to explain the exact same misconception to her, so that she could then use it for a gotcha moment but also so that she didn't look dumb on TV by making the same mistake.

Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

Re: So DIVERSE!

I believe you're falling into the fallacy that 'elected'/'appointed' officials know best("Government knows best"). Congress are the ones who levy taxes. Congress is comprised entirely of elected officials. 'Retard lady' being one of them.

The idea of taxing income earned over the top tier percentage is that they're contributing back to society at a rate that is proportional to the earnings they are receiving. If you believe that private entities are going to care about your local infrastructure and outlook when they are being consolidated into global mega-corps then you must believe that Comcast and Time Warner are looking out for your best interests as well.

I don't think we need to go back to a 70% straight up, but I firmly believe that 50+% taxation on earnings over 400,000 is not obscene. The 'problem' is that our tax code allows for such things as these 'offshore' accounts and shell corporations where earnings/profit and shit can be 'removed' from our economy. Effectively reducing the tax base further. The entire GOP plan for a few decades now has been to starve government from being able to do "it's job" so that they can push the private enterprise shtick.

I wouldn't say that I trust elected officials any more than private entities, but the idea used to be that reporters/journalists would be the 'public watchdogs' of these entities (public and private) and work to expose their shady practices. The Regan era also saw massive restructuring of media laws and 'fair reporting' type regulations. Now one company can own 30 news stations/news papers and you get the memes where 15 different "local" news stations around the country have the exact same opening line and take on a story.

There's enough loop holes in our tax code/system that ""savy"" businessmen end up paying zero taxes, on both sides of the corrupt party lines.

Re: So DIVERSE!

Originally Posted by Pyrrhus

I believe you're falling into the fallacy that 'elected'/'appointed' officials know best("Government knows best"). Congress are the ones who levy taxes. Congress is comprised entirely of elected officials. 'Retard lady' being one of them.

The idea of taxing income earned over the top tier percentage is that they're contributing back to society at a rate that is proportional to the earnings they are receiving. If you believe that private entities are going to care about your local infrastructure and outlook when they are being consolidated into global mega-corps then you must believe that Comcast and Time Warner are looking out for your best interests as well.

I don't think we need to go back to a 70% straight up, but I firmly believe that 50+% taxation on earnings over 400,000 is not obscene. The 'problem' is that our tax code allows for such things as these 'offshore' accounts and shell corporations where earnings/profit and shit can be 'removed' from our economy. Effectively reducing the tax base further. The entire GOP plan for a few decades now has been to starve government from being able to do "it's job" so that they can push the private enterprise shtick.

I wouldn't say that I trust elected officials any more than private entities, but the idea used to be that reporters/journalists would be the 'public watchdogs' of these entities (public and private) and work to expose their shady practices. The Regan era also saw massive restructuring of media laws and 'fair reporting' type regulations. Now one company can own 30 news stations/news papers and you get the memes where 15 different "local" news stations around the country have the exact same opening line and take on a story.

There's enough loop holes in our tax code/system that ""savy"" businessmen end up paying zero taxes, on both sides of the corrupt party lines.

Okay, but the point stands. If 50%+ was such a great idea, Democrats would have done it. In the work I do this is basically my day-to-day. People come to me and ask why the one thing they're looking at can't be some other way that they prefer or would be convenient, and I have to explain context they don't want to hear. They just want me to do something I'm not going to do, or not always going to be able to do. So, seeing that no one has done this on the blue team even though they talk about it constantly and have had total majorities capable of it, I can't shake the feeling that there's some higher context to the reason why they haven't actually done it.

I'm still out of my depth on finance/economics but I am aware of hiding/storing money and there's a lot more to it. I like the concept of not owning anything and using companies. Instead of owning a house in your name, you have a real estate company and you can do as you please with your holdings. I don't know if that example works in the law or not, but that sort of idea.

I worry about how the left and a lot of times the center, can tack on the word "OLD" when they talk about the wealthy. A person with a normal middle class career can end up making a lot of money if they are aggressive and over a lifetime they can accumulate a lot of property, stock, or whatever else. If they're really smart about it they can appear very wealthy in their old age, but it's accumulation over a time scale that people have trouble thinking on. Whenever we leave income and start looking at what else to tax this is directly where I see things go. Estate, death and wealth taxes go hand in hand with the stereotype of the "rich old white man". Every villain is always some old building owner kicking tenants out or some old factory owner laying people off and it's not just the libtards that buy the stereotype.

Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

Re: So DIVERSE!

Originally Posted by VKhaun

Okay, but the point stands. If 50%+ was such a great idea, Democrats would have done it. In the work I do this is basically my day-to-day. People come to me and ask why the one thing they're looking at can't be some other way that they prefer or would be convenient, and I have to explain context they don't want to hear. They just want me to do something I'm not going to do, or not always going to be able to do. So, seeing that no one has done this on the blue team even though they talk about it constantly and have had total majorities capable of it, I can't shake the feeling that there's some higher context to the reason why they haven't actually done it.

I'm still out of my depth on finance/economics but I am aware of hiding/storing money and there's a lot more to it. I like the concept of not owning anything and using companies. Instead of owning a house in your name, you have a real estate company and you can do as you please with your holdings. I don't know if that example works in the law or not, but that sort of idea.

I worry about how the left and a lot of times the center, can tack on the word "OLD" when they talk about the wealthy. A person with a normal middle class career can end up making a lot of money if they are aggressive and over a lifetime they can accumulate a lot of property, stock, or whatever else. If they're really smart about it they can appear very wealthy in their old age, but it's accumulation over a time scale that people have trouble thinking on. Whenever we leave income and start looking at what else to tax this is directly where I see things go. Estate, death and wealth taxes go hand in hand with the stereotype of the "rich old white man". Every villain is always some old building owner kicking tenants out or some old factory owner laying people off and it's not just the libtards that buy the stereotype.

I would imagine most 'in power' currently were complicit with the Regan era tax breaks and the Clinton era business practices. I really try not to take a side on the matter of why 'dem libbies' or 'durr publicans' do what they do aside from the common $$$. It has not been 'popular' nor has it been 'necessary' for high income taxes over the last few decades, it still may not be 'necessary' but a higher tax on the upper tiers could assist us in reinvesting into our country as a whole. Such taxes don't have to be for pure 'socialism' based spending, remember the 'handout' that everyone got under bush? What did they call it, a stimulus package? We need to reinvest in America First as a reality, not the bullshit that Trump spewed and really isn't doing anything with due to his dissonance with his own party and the dems.

The issue I see, is where and what are we doing about the direction of our country as a whole? Our government is essentially 'living paycheck to paycheck' as it can't balance its own budget (which can be very quickly alleviated with both increased taxation, AND, reduced spending) and we are sinking further into the 'deficit'. The whole trade war that has been going on recently is back and forth, but I feel it is harming long-term possibilities, I think it would be in our interest to remove ourself from Chinese/Asian debt asap. Further the volatility of the stock market, to me, signals that there are deeper plays being made at the digital algorithm scale and someone is profiting handsomely on every weekly dive and climb (''tinfoil conspiracy'').

It's certainly more complex than I can understand for sure, but it doesn't seem so confusing as to why 'no one suggested it since Regan' as they are all profiting off the policies. The perpetual campaign funding (and lobbying) and lack of real regulation alone makes successful politicians millions of dollars in usable income, even if they don't "earn it" themselves. Shit's corrupt.

Re: So DIVERSE!

Re: So DIVERSE!

Originally Posted by Pyrrhus

The issue I see, is where and what are we doing about the direction of our country as a whole? Our government is essentially 'living paycheck to paycheck' as it can't balance its own budget (which can be very quickly alleviated with both increased taxation, AND, reduced spending) and we are sinking further into the 'deficit'. The whole trade war that has been going on recently is back and forth, but I feel it is harming long-term possibilities, I think it would be in our interest to remove ourself from Chinese/Asian debt asap. Further the volatility of the stock market, to me, signals that there are deeper plays being made at the digital algorithm scale and someone is profiting handsomely on every weekly dive and climb (''tinfoil conspiracy'').

It's certainly more complex than I can understand for sure, but it doesn't seem so confusing as to why 'no one suggested it since Regan' as they are all profiting off the policies. The perpetual campaign funding (and lobbying) and lack of real regulation alone makes successful politicians millions of dollars in usable income, even if they don't "earn it" themselves. Shit's corrupt.

We're living paycheck to paycheck because of all the foreign wars we fight on behalf of Israel and our bloated welfare state. If we simply stopped doing those two things we could erase it pretty quickly. At minimum no one who is "in the red" in this equation should not be entitled to a vote. It's like allowing a hobo you decided to feed partial control over your house. Beggars can't be choosers.

"The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."